Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 219

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of this Order why the Court should not reimpose the vexatious litigant prefiling order vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ANNE BLOCK, an individual,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C15-2018RSM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

This matter is before the Court sua sponte after remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of

16

Appeals. The Ninth Circuit vacated this Court’s order as it related to imposition of a vexatious

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

litigant pre-filing order imposed by this Court and remanded for further proceedings to assure
that the correct procedure was followed. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that prior to
imposing a vexatious litigant pre-filing order, this Court must:
(1) give litigants notice and an opportunity to oppose the order before it [is]
entered; (2) compile an adequate record for appellate review, including a listing
of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious
litigant order was needed; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness or
harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as to closely fit the specific vice
encountered.

25

Dkt. #213 at 3 (quoting Ringgold-Lockhart v. City of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.

26

2014)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ORDER – 1

There is little question that the last three elements are satisfied. Prior to imposing its

1
2

order, this Court noted that an adequate record for review had been assembled in support of the

3

order. Dkt. #122 at 24 (incorporating Dkt. #48 at ¶ 3). The Court made substantive findings as

4

to the frivolous and harassing nature of Plaintiff’s repeated lawsuits.1 Id. Lastly, the Court

5
6

narrowly tailored its order to closely fit the vice encountered. Id. at 25–26. The Ninth Circuit,
however, specifically noted that the record was unclear as to whether Plaintiff “had notice of the

7
8
9
10

pre-filing order or an opportunity to oppose it.” Dkt. #213 at 4. The only issue on remand is
whether Plaintiff has been afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to respond prior to the
Court imposing the vexatious litigant pre-filing order.

11

Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within

12

thirty (30) days of this Order why the Court should not reimpose the vexatious litigant pre-

13
14
15

filing order vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff’s response to this Order
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) pages. No other responses or replies are permitted.
Dated this 10 day of June 2019.

16

A

17

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court’s finding as to the frivolous nature of this action were expressly affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit in the context of the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees. Dkt. #213 at 3 (“The district
court concluded that [Plaintiff’s] claims were frivolous, and [Plaintiff] fails to demonstrate on
appeal that the district court erred in so concluding. We therefore affirm.”).

ORDER – 2